NARENDRA MOHAPATRA Vs. MANORAMA MOHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 2 3/03/2000 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela in Criminal Proceeding No. 53 of 1999 allowing maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month to the opposite party in a proceeding under Section 125, Cr. P. C.

(2.) The case of the opposite party is that she had married the petitioner in the year 1961 and out of the wedlock three daughters and one son were born. After the marriage the opposite party was residing in her matrimonial house at Rajkanika and the petitioner was residing at Rourkela and was serving as a senior teacher in Rourkela Steel Plant. At that point of time the petitioner developed relationship with one of his students, namely, Basanti Sahoo and started neglecting the opposite party and children. Coming to know about such relationship the opposite party lost her mental balance and taking advantage of such condition, the petitioner in collusion with said Basanti Sahoo took her to Uditnagar Court premises and obtained her signature on a petition meant for divorce on her consent and ultimately also obtained a decree for divorce by fraud. Thereafter, it is alleged that the petitioner married said Basanti Sahoo and they are living as husband and wife. Since the petitioner neglected the opposite party in maintaining her and did not provide any maintenance even after dissolution of the marriage, she filed an application u/S. 125, Cr. P. C. claiming maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- pern month.

(3.) The present petitioner appeared before the Court and filed his written statement stating that he had never neglected the opposite party and always maintained her and the children, but the opposite party wanted to give up the worldly pleasure and wanted a divorce as a result of which Title Suit No. 65 of 1987 was filed in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Rourkela for divorce on mutual consent and the same was allowed. After such .divorce the petitioner married another lady and stayed with the children. The further case of the petitioner is that after the divorce the opposite party never claimed any maintenance and after long lapse of time she filed an application u/S. 125, Cr. P. C. for maintenance.